TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Nigel Lythgoe’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Defendant Nigel Lythgoe shall file and serve an answer to Plaintiff Jane Doe’s First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).)

Defendant Nigel Lythgoe to give notice. 

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant Nigel Lythgoe (“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of six news articles. Defendant’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), insofar as the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that these articles were published, but the Court does not take judicial notice of the veracity of the facts stated therein.

Analysis

The court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Defendant takes issue with Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”)’s use of “Jane Doe” in this action to litigate this case anonymously, contending that Plaintiff must litigate this case with her real name because Plaintiff has not sought court permission to proceed anonymously, she has not alleged any special circumstances that would allow her to proceed anonymously, the public has a substantial interest in knowing the names of all parties in this case, and Defendant’s defense will be prejudiced because certain witnesses will not come forward if they are not aware of the identity of Defendant’s accuser, and the jury and the public could wrongly infer that Plaintiff is a victim simply because she is proceeding anonymously.

“The judicial use of ‘Doe plaintiffs’ to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World Wide Web.” (Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1452, fn. 7.) “[F]ederal courts have permitted plaintiffs to use pseudonyms in three situations: (1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution,” and “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” (Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 767, quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted.) 

The Court finds there is sufficient reason to permit Plaintiff to litigate this action as a “Jane Doe.” Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges sexual assault by Defendant, and Defendant is a television and film director, producer, and television personality (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2-5, 7). It is reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff may be subject to harm and retaliation should her name be publicly revealed; for example, should the Court require Plaintiff to name herself in the complaint, her name will appear in Internet search results with the accompanying allegations while the case is still being litigated, Plaintiff may be subject to harassment from third parties due to potential publicity surrounding this case, and Plaintiff may be subject to a stigma of being an “accuser” without a disposition on the merits to inform any conclusion, which may cause Plaintiff professional and economic harm. The Court finds that the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations is sensitive and personal, and anonymity is warranted. The cases cited by Defendant which come from jurisdictions outside of California, such as Doe v. Combs (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024, No. 23-CV-10628 (JGLC)) 2024 WL 863705), are not persuasive, as California case law makes clear that California employs a liberal protection of privacy when related to sexual assault. The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to maintain her privacy, and she has alleged a sufficient basis for anonymity.

Insofar as Defendant contends the anonymity will affect his defense, the Court is not convinced that potential witnesses will not come forward simply because Plaintiff’s name is not publicized because it is Defendant’s responsibility to contact witnesses to mount a defense, not for witnesses to find him after reading a news article about the account. The Court is also unprepared to require disclosure of Plaintiff’s name now because of what may happen at trial, as the Court can reevaluate how to proceed when the action is set for trial. Accordingly, Defendant Nigel Lythgoe’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DENIED. Defendant Nigel Lythgoe shall file and serve an answer to Plaintiff Jane Doe’s First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).)